I love it when every day for last 20 years people are always screaming “recession recession bubble bubble”. They get angrier and angrier as S&P advanced.
Most have zero skills or competence to assess the market valuation or macro economics or geopolitics. Yet they try.
Meanwhile OpenAI raised capital at $500B valuation, forming eco systems and partnerships and helping customers and enterprises.
Dollar cost average. Sleep well. Enjoy life. Don’t be sad and depressed.
I’m gonna qualify this comment a lil bit-
There are at least five types of investors and POVs.
Pre- market, pre-chasm: 
Innovators
Early adaptors
Crossing chasm, tornado: 
Growth investors
Post chasm, mature value: 
Value investors.
I “see” the different commentors in this topic commenting from those different POVs.
ralph
I think we all should be skeptical of comments that misrepresent. Never said demand is not growing. I suggested that demand may not be growing exponentially. Big difference.
To be honest, I think anyone who ignores the flattening and even decline of the AI corporate adoption curve over the last quarter as being a potential negative to the sky-high valuations of AI companies is the one who has “already made up his mind”.
Yep he got that one right What do you think of his projection that the AOL-Time Warner merger would result in the most valuable company of all time? How about the one where he said Huffington Post would have more ad revenue than CNN in two years? Or the more recent one that stock market returns from 2016 on would be about 2%.
One might even remember that he paid a $4 million dollar fine and was barred from the securities industry for his relentless pounding of spurious internet stocks and leading his investors astray.
So when you want to quote Henry Blodgett as some kind of wunderkind forecaster, how about telling the whole story? It’s easy to cherry pick a winner. Harder if the bowl of raisins is sprinkled with turds.
Interesting example you chose. It took Amazon almost 10 years to recover its stock valuation after the 2000 dot.com crash. And how stupid do you consider the arguments made against the valuations of pets.com and etoys.com?
Here is the teaching moment. Dot.com tech has dramatically changed the economy. Yet there still was a dot.com bubble and a dot.com stock market crash that wiped away a lot of dot.com companies and took 6 years for the overall market to recover from.
The same will happen with AI. Most AI companies will fail. Investors will do fine if they pick the right companies and can hold on for about a decade. Choose wrong or have a shorter investment window and it could get painful.
Amazon’s original business was not a winner. The AWS cloud servcies are why Amazon makes money. Most of it anyway. Letting Amzn live long enough to make money off of other parts of its business.
A company that shifts as much as Amazon did is a different company in every regard but the name.
You are misrepresenting the facts. 3x growth in 2 years is exponential growth. You are arguing it is not. You are seeing one month trend and then declaring it is declining.
One quarter where we had significant disruption due to tariff is telling you everything you need to know??? You are speaking your belief not the data. There is not sufficient data to show anything you are talking. Are you being objective?
Goofy, No one needs to get everything right. I am not even going to go into some of the inconsistencies in your post. The point I raised is, even today, on a call that is absolutely proven to be correct and still people are addressing him as idiot.
This is not about Henry Blodget, it is about people develop an opinion and no amount of facts is going to change their views.
WE can talk about him, if you want. But, blindly vilifying him and attacking him with false facts is a shame.
For the record, Henry Blodget questioned the synergy. You may be confusing someone else with his views. He did say AOL is the bluechip of the internet company, which is true. AOL is a case of where the management completely squandered a great opportunity.
You are only arguing my point, except that you are wearing blinders that is preventing you from seeing my point. Specifically on pets com I have posted how VC’s view
If you are going to compare the valuation, then be honest and do a proper valuation. I have posted some thoughts on $MSFT here… compare this with $CSCO valuation.
$CSCO which was the poster child of excess of dot com era, at peak had 200 PE, compare that to $NVDA, then you will know how far we have to go to the bubble phase.
I have posted this, but will say it again, Greenspan talked about irrational exuberance in 1996 and markets peaked after 3 years, and Nasdaq gained 200%. So anyone can say bubble and feel very smart… but that is not how you make money in the market.
The stupidest comments were on AWS, post 2014. Check out old Falling Knives board.
We keep making this argument over and over again, don’t we? And some still don’t understand.
AI is real. AI is a bubble. Both statements are true.
But heads explode!
2026 is 20/20
I think this is the crux of the disagreements!
JimA
What is the disagreements??? Here my post on the very subject… Just don’t say I disagree but provide where and how you disagree.
Instead of pointing others don’t understand, define what is a bubble valuation, and make your case why you think current valuation is bubble. Put some data and make an argument. I have provided multiple data points why current valuation is not in bubble territory. But bubble proponents are yet to make one cohesive argument.
In stock market history, bubbles form, get stronger by Fed rate cut, some even gained strength even during initial rate hikes…
We are in Fed rate cut cycle… the least painful course is markets going up between now and the YE…
People don’t understand AI. Therefore, they are scared.
The look backwards to CSCO again and again to reaffirm their views. Not becuase it is relevant, but because that is all they know.
The definition of exponential growth is that the growth rate increases in proportion to the size of the market. Exponential growth - Wikipedia
You claim that the there was “ 3x growth in 2 years”. Since the 2025 estimate is $390B that means you think the 2023 AI market is $130B. The graph says the 2024 market was $279B. So let’s do some math!
Growth 2023-2024: $130B to $279B = 115% growth rate. Since the 2024 market is twice the size of the 2023 market, exponential growth would mean it should be growing at least twice as fast (at about a 200% rate).
Growth 2024-2025: $279B to $390B = 40% growth rate. Oops.
Last I checked, 40% < 115%. I see no evidence of exponential growth in demand, only projections. If you don’t understand the concept of exponential, it probably shouldn’t be a big part of your valuation analysis.
Nope. It is just suggesting to me that AI growth over the entire industry may not be exponential in the near future if companies are pulling back adoption of AI.
And why do you believe tariffs are disrupting AI adoption? It doesn’t seem to be affecting AI investments. If the cost of business is rising due to tariffs, you would think that businesses would be rushing to adapt technology that makes them more productive and increases efficiency. In contrast, it appears AI is one of the things that is considered extraneous in tougher times.
Beats me, but I can say that I have a position in NVIDIA so I am clearly not ideologically opposed to AI companies becoming successful. On the other hand, if a lot of folks who think like you are invested in NVIDIA then I am prone to thinking it may be grossly overvalued because of irrational exuberance.
The poster chile of excess in the AI bubble era is Palantir, which has a PE of about 800 (!).
At its 2000 bubble peak, CSCO market cap was about $500B, comparable to Palantir today. We know what happened to CSCO.
As they say, it is deja vu all over again.
You are playing gotcha with words… dismissing 40% growth in a capacity constraint environment is end of the world… so be it…
